Hello, and thank you for your reply.
Yes, I believe it to be Levantine, though the date attribution
surprises me. What leads you to conclude that it is so much newer?
I believe the deterioration to be correct as one can see how the glass
was not perfectly mixed when poured, for the silicates leaching out leave a sort of swirled deterioration pattern. Beyond this, some of it is so advanced that the bottle
didn't hold water when I got it, as it had
crumbled in portions (now repaired) due to the advanced deterioration. The base is rather flakey, and the pitting
and staining very uneven. It is difficult to replicate it without uniformity, so this all lends credit to its potential for being ancient. Beyond this, the three types
of "patination," as archaeologists incorrectly termed it, all appear correct for a dug bottle
. I've seen two types
replicated by man
, but all three together I have never seen. One can easily apply a mineral scaling. One can stain the bottle
and give it an oily sheen. But the flakey iridescence
is more difficult to reproduce, especially when it is separate from flakey glass
. Usually, an acid-dip just dulls the surface of the bottle
Thank you, and have a great day.